Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a suit by a money-lender must be dismissed for want of a registration certificate relating to the date of the loan transaction, or whether production during the suit of a certificate then in force is sufficient compliance with the Act.
Analysis: Section 11-F of the Central Provinces and Berar Moneylenders Act, 1934 penalises carrying on the business of money-lending without a valid registration certificate, but it does not expressly declare loans advanced in breach of that requirement to be illegal or void. Read with Sections 11-H, 3 and 7, the scheme of the Act shows that registration is a condition relevant to the money-lender's right to proceed with the suit, not a condition that vitiates the individual loan transaction ab initio. The Court held that the object of the provision was only to secure revenue and that the borrower received no additional protection from registration. It further held that the words in Section 11-H require the money-lender to hold a valid certificate at the time the suit is to proceed, and that a certificate obtained and in force during the pendency of the suit satisfies the statutory requirement.
Conclusion: The suit is not liable to be dismissed merely because the money-lender lacked a certificate on the date of the advance, if a valid certificate is produced during the pendency of the suit.